Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

I don't disagree; however, the prophecies are a bit more evidential in nature. Too many times too many people get all caught up in non salvation issues, which are open to discussion and interpretation, but result too often in a fertile environment for Lucifer and his earthly minions.

---

Sadly BUDOS, when someone wants a fight that person will ignore anything but that fight.

You'd think believers would put aside these bickerings on Christmas Eve in respect of our Lord.

I had hoped so, anyway.

---

There is no greater respect for the Lord, than to stand for his truth in the face of untruth.

Cowering from doing so dishonors him.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Roman Catholic Church believes that Mary was:

sinless;

perpetually pure (a virgin);

assumed bodily into heaven;

• as a highly glorified being in heaven acts as intercessor between sinners and God (Mediatrix),

---

.

Quote:

---

Think about it - where did you get the belief that you go to this particular saint for one thing, and another saint for another

---

You have two relatives who are Christians, a brother and a sister. Your brother is a Navy Seal, your sister suffered a miscarriage. If your wife miscarries, is she going to ask your brother or your sister to pray for her?

It's unfortunate that the old hymals with the song "Family of God" got tossed by protestant churches trying to be culturally relevant and seeker sensitive. If they were still using them, this might not be so hard to understand.

As for your stubborn, extrabiblical insistence that the saints of previous generations are dead and cannot be spoken to

"And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him." (Matthew 17:2)

"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 11:26)

Any other questions?

---

Again, I just can't believe how frequently you seem to think something supports your point, when it doesn't AT ALL. When Moses and Elijah appeared, ONLY JESUS TALKS WITH THEM. THE DISCIPLES DIDN'T UTTER A WORD AT THEM.

And I didn't say saints were "dead". You continue with your dishonest straw men. Seriously, if you can't understand what's being argued, please stop arguing.

Are you attacking individuals caught up in their interpretations of the Bible or are they attacking you for your interpretation?

Luther and Zwingli "discuss" the real presence. A must watch.

BUDOS said:

---

Are you attacking individuals caught up in their interpretations of the Bible or are they attacking you for your interpretation?

---

Are you reading only what you want to be reading?

"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

1 Corinthians 13:1-2

Research indicates relatively few read what they don't like, and of the few that do, most read very little of what they don't like.

However, I appreciate that you didn't take your normal attack mode that often seems to be almost totally focused on belittling and stripping the other party of their humanity. Thanks

Oldbear83 said:

---

"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

1 Corinthians 13:1-2

---

Love for God leads to confronting falsehood, even sharply. Don't mistake that as not having love. Love is tough sometimes. Did Jesus not have love when he told the church at Thyatira that he will "strike her children dead" if they did not repent? Was John the Baptist just a "clanging cymbal" when he called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers"? Was Jesus just a "resounding gong" when he told the Pharisees their father was the Devil, and when he drove out money changers from the temple with a whip?

BUDOS said:

---

Research indicates relatively few read what they don't like, and of the few that do, most read very little of what they don't like.

However, I appreciate that you didn't take your normal attack mode that often seems to be almost totally focused on belittling and stripping the other party of their humanity. Thanks

---

So you DO only read what you want to read. How about preaching to those who attacked me?

When you are a better judge at that, then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge me. Where do you think I went into "attack mode" where I "stripped others of their humanity"? I can sure point you to where that did occur, and it was (tried) against me.

And then tell me where I am wrong, with anything I said. Because it seems like you're trying to attack me personally because you are angry at the truth of what I'm saying and can't contend with any of it.

What do you know about the Pharisees?

"For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

Matthew 6:14-15

"And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

Mark 11:25

Now that is something that needs to be stamped in our hearts not kept in a phylactery on someone's head.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

Matthew 6:14-15

"And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

Mark 11:25

---

Posting verses is nice, but relevance needs to be a consideration.

BUDOS said:

---

What do you know about the Pharisees?

---

I know they were more interested in attacking Jesus for telling them inconvenient truths, and pointing at him as if HE was the problem rather than their errors. They also couldn't contend with his arguments, so they accused HIM of evil so they didn't have to.

Merry Christmas Everyone! God Bless You & Keep You!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Research indicates relatively few read what they don't like, and of the few that do, most read very little of what they don't like.

However, I appreciate that you didn't take your normal attack mode that often seems to be almost totally focused on belittling and stripping the other party of their humanity. Thanks

---

So you DO only read what you want to read. How about preaching to those who attacked me?

When you are a better judge at that, then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge me. Where do you think I went into "attack mode" where I "stripped others of their humanity"? I can sure point you to where that did occur, and it was (tried) against me.

And then tell me where I am wrong, with anything I said. Because it seems like you're trying to attack me personally because you are angry at the truth of what I'm saying and can't contend with any of it.

---

I personally know of your ability to attack and stripe other of their humanity because they disagree with you.

Excellent! And thank you again for turning your tone down a bit.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Folks, I can not emphasize the significance of what I just said any more strongly -

Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity anathematizes to HELL those who reject icon veneration - and its rejection was the UNIVERSAL, RESOUNDING WITNESS of the early church and scripture !!

RC and Orthodoxy simply can NOT claim to be the original church. To understand deep into church history is to cease being Roman Catholic/Orthodox.

---

This is NOT an official canon of the Second Council of Nicaea. It was commentary from Basil of Ancyra concerning those bishops who had been led astray by the Iconoclasts came, asking to be received back.

It was not necessarily meant for lay persons. Even if it were directed at lay persons, it was NOT official canon.

Please try to get your facts correct before presenting falsehoods about the Church. For those that would like to read about the Second Council of Nicaea, here is a link. It's quite long. The official canons are listed near the bottom.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Again, I just can't believe how frequently you seem to think something supports your point, when it doesn't AT ALL. When Moses and Elijah appeared, ONLY JESUS TALKS WITH THEM. THE DISCIPLES DIDN'T UTTER A WORD AT THEM.

And I didn't say saints were "dead". You continue with your dishonest straw men. Seriously, if you can't understand what's being argued, please stop arguing.

---

So your Jesus would do something that is not permitted for humans to do? You have a strange view of Jesus.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sinless? Perpetually pure? Assumed bodily into heaven? Mediator between sinners and God? Ominscient and omnipresent in receiving prayers?? HELLO?? Sound familiar AT ALL?? Do you REALLY need an official document to know what's being screamed here?

---

What is your understanding (definition) of omnipresent and omniscient? Please cite where the Catholic Church claims these two attributes that can only be attributed to God alone.

I honestly post this with all humility. I believe that I understand your frustration; however, your posts do NOT present what the Catholic Church teaches.

To quote the Venerable Bishop Fulton J Sheen - "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."

This is where you are.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Jesus is the new Adam. Mary is the new EVE. (Adam and Eve were born without original sin.) As the first woman came from man, Jesus came from Mary. God, in his wonderfully designed plan, has reversed what happened at the fall! Mary would HAVE to be sinless or she would be less than Eve. That's not possible. In typology, the new is always superior to the old.

---

Mary absolutely HAD to have been conceived in sin. If she was sinless, then she would NOT have been in the line of sinful seed coming from Adam and Eve, and she would NOT have carried that sinful line of seed to be able to produce Jesus who God promised would ultimately come from Eve's sinful line of seed to "crush the head of the serpent". If Mary was sinless, then there couldn't have been a reversal of the Fall through her at all. Your typology fails.

---

Explain where in the bible that the God promises that it will come from a sinful line. That's not in my bible.

In typology the new is ALWAYS superior to the old. Both Adam and Eve were sinless (until the fall), just like Jesus and Mary were both sinless.

St. Augustine said that "the Old Testament is the New concealed, but the New Testament is the Old revealed"

Irenaeus of Lyon (180 AD, who was a disciple of Polycarp who was taught by John) shows that he believes that Mary is the new Eve when he says that Eve "by disobeying became the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so also Mary . . . was obedient and became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race" (Against Heresies 3.22.4).

Eve is the mother of ALL the living.
Mary is the mother of ALL those living in Christ.

The "Eva" (Eve) is reversed by the "Ave" that the angel says to Mary.

The Old Eve fails in the temptation of the fallen angel.
The New Eve (Mary) acquiesced to the invitation of the holy angel.

The Old Eve says "yes" to herself - she did things her way by eating of the tree of knowledge and evil.
The New Eve (Mary), in her fiat, says "yes" to God.

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296373) "O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides" (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

What did the original Ark of the Covenant hold? Aaron's staff (high priest), the Manna from the Desert (bread from God), and the Ten Commandments (the Word of God)
What did Mary hold in her womb? Jesus - the High Priest, the Bread from Heaven, and the Word of God.

Where does David find the Ark? In the Hill Country of Judea. Where does Mary (the New Ark) go? To the Hill Country of Judea to visit Elisabeth.

What does David do before the Ark? He leaps and dances. What does John the Baptist do in the womb of Elisabeth? He leaps and dances in her womb.

As I stated earlier, in Typology, the new is ALWAYS superior to the old. If Eve was originally sinless, Mary was also sinless AND remained sinless throughout her life. She is superior to the new eve.

St Luke is screaming this in his Gospel. The early Christians, would have understood this immediately. Sadly, many Protestants does understand and see these connections today.

Finally, the original Ark of the Covenant was made from acacia wood (incorruptible wood) and covered in the most purist of metals of the day - Gold. In typology, the new is ALWAYS superior to the old. Mary MOST definitely been more incorruptible and pure than the original Ark.

It is you that doesn't understand typology correctly.

I truly wish that I could understand it for you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You've repeatedly said Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, but you've never shown how. Sola Scriptura is not self-refuting. This is just another really weak Catholic rebuttal.

---

Show us where in the bible that the bible is the sole rule of faith. You can't. It's self-refuting. The bible never says that. You'll have to explain where that it.

As a bonus, please why we should accept your fallible interpretation of bible passages. Where is your authority?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Nowhere in scripture are we told that Mary was a perfect woman. This is yet another heretical attempt at deifying Mary that crept into the Catholic Church over time via accretion, which clearly is not in scripture or the early church.

---

Once again, please cite official Catholic teaching that states that Mary is a God.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If God could have chosen Jesus to have been born of any woman, even a prostitute.... then clearly, it was not necessary that Mary be a perfect woman. There is no reason, therefore, to think that she was. The only reason to is by conscious choice, not by divine revelation - a conscious choice to elevate her to the level of deity.

---

God COULD have chosen to have the Christ be born of a *****, but He chose what was FITTING. To have her be born of a sinless virgin. It's sad to see you degrade her like this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Catholics can deny that they worship Mary all they want - but having statues and pictures of her, bowing to her image, kissing her image, praying to her, singing hymns to her, having HUNDREDS of feasts to Mary every year (much, much more than for God), and saying her name 10 times to every one time saying God's name in the rosary..... you just aren't fooling ANYONE. "Worship" isn't just sacrifice. It's all the above. Do Catholics really think people are this stupid to buy this??

---

Dude, please don't lower yourself to a Gish Gallop. Pick one issue to discuss. These are easy to refute. Will your biases allow you to see?

Did you kneel before your wife when you got engaged? I did. It didn't mean that I worshipped her.

Also, remember that Soloman bowed before Bathsheba. He wasn't worshipping her. He was asking for her intercession.

Have you ever kissed a picture of your wife or son? Were you worshipping them? This is a silly objection.

People sing songs to Santa Clause, spouses, historical figures, lovers, ex-lovers, etc. They aren't worshipping them.

I've already discussed the Rosary here before. It's a merely a contemplation of the life of Christ using scripture. Please PM me if you'd like to learn more. Will you listen and understand this time?

Sadly, your biases are clouding your judgement.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In order for Jesus to be the new "Adam", his "Eve" would have to come FROM him, just as Eve was the "new" thing that came from Adam. Mary did not come from Jesus, Jesus was born from her. The "new" thing that came from Jesus was the church, Jesus' body of believers. If there is such a thing as a "new Eve" (which isn't biblical) it would be the church - that's why it's called the bride of Christ. But perhaps it is appropriate, though, to call Mary the new Eve in the sense that Eve brought sin into the world, just as the Catholic Mary has brought heresey and idolatry into Christianity.

---

Are you saying that Mary brought "heresey" into this world? You have a very low opinion of the mother of God. I pray for you to repent of this belief.

Maybe I have explained it well … Just like Eve came from Adam (whose that caused the destruction of mankind), God allowed the REVERSE to fix the world, and Jesus came from Mary.

I'm truly sad that you can't see this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please WAKE UP. Give up the charade. The entire rational world knows you worship Mary.

---

Nope. Worship evolves sacrifice. We only offer sacrifice to God.

Good morning, hope everyone had a great Christmas.

Lets take a step back from the theological specifics of Mary for a second.

Say you had to create a Mount Rushmore list of the people with the best relationsbip with God in history. The list is limited to four. Who would make that list?

Would Mary be on that list?

Mary (the mother of God), John the Baptist (the Forerunner), the Apostle Paul (guy chosen to write most of the NT) for me are the three obvious slam dunk choices.

Probably more wiggle room for the fourth pick, and you could pick from a list with Enoch, Elijah, Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Peter, Stephan, and many others.

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Research indicates relatively few read what they don't like, and of the few that do, most read very little of what they don't like.

However, I appreciate that you didn't take your normal attack mode that often seems to be almost totally focused on belittling and stripping the other party of their humanity. Thanks

---

So you DO only read what you want to read. How about preaching to those who attacked me?

When you are a better judge at that, then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge me. Where do you think I went into "attack mode" where I "stripped others of their humanity"? I can sure point you to where that did occur, and it was (tried) against me.

And then tell me where I am wrong, with anything I said. Because it seems like you're trying to attack me personally because you are angry at the truth of what I'm saying and can't contend with any of it.

---

I personally know of your ability to attack and stripe other of their humanity because they disagree with you.

---

Can you cite a specific example? When and how have I ever "striped others of their humanity"? How can one even do that on a message board??

And are you willing to admit that others have been as vicious as you are making me out to be, to ME?

I think what you guys are very sensitive to, is your OWN faulty beliefs. I exposed them. I exposed your faulty thinking and reasoning. As a defense mechanism, you're trying to make ME out to be the bad guy because you can't contend with what I'm saying and it makes you uncomfortable. Classic ad hominem.

BUDOS said:

---

Excellent! And thank you again for turning your tone down a bit.

---

Please get off your high horse, stop reading through your biased filter and be a better judge, and actually engage what I'm saying. Do you admit you're being selective with your judgement, or not? Why haven't you been able to cite any examples of how I'm "stripping others' humanity"?? My tone is what it is, and when it gets sharp, it's warranted.

Are you telling the OT prophets to turn down their tone? John the Baptist? Jesus?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Folks, I can not emphasize the significance of what I just said any more strongly -

Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity anathematizes to HELL those who reject icon veneration - and its rejection was the UNIVERSAL, RESOUNDING WITNESS of the early church and scripture !!

RC and Orthodoxy simply can NOT claim to be the original church. To understand deep into church history is to cease being Roman Catholic/Orthodox.

---

This is NOT an official canon of the Second Council of Nicaea. It was commentary from Basil of Ancyra concerning those bishops who had been led astray by the Iconoclasts came, asking to be received back.

It was not necessarily meant for lay persons. Even if it were directed at lay persons, it was NOT official canon.

Please try to get your facts correct before presenting falsehoods about the Church. For those that would like to read about the Second Council of Nicaea, here is a link. It's quite long. The official canons are listed near the bottom.

---

It wasn't a commentary from Basil of Ancyra, it was his confession to the Council, because HE was one who was "led astray" by iconoclasts and HE was asking to be received back into the Roman Catholic Church. Regardless, he cites those anathemas, and it was fully received by the Council. At the end of his speech (from your link), "Tarasius, the most holy Patriarch, said: This whole sacred gathering yields glory and thanks to God for this confession of yours, which you have made to the Catholic Church." And then, "The Holy Synod said: Glory to God which makes one that which was severed."

If Basil of Ancyra's anathemas were inappropriate or unacceptable to the Council, it would/should have been corrected or rejected. But it wasn't. It was fully received. They received back someone who had just anathematized the belief of the early church fathers. If you're saying this was wrong, then you've just debunked the claimed divine authority of the Councils and hence of the Roman Catholic Church.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Again, I just can't believe how frequently you seem to think something supports your point, when it doesn't AT ALL. When Moses and Elijah appeared, ONLY JESUS TALKS WITH THEM. THE DISCIPLES DIDN'T UTTER A WORD AT THEM.

And I didn't say saints were "dead". You continue with your dishonest straw men. Seriously, if you can't understand what's being argued, please stop arguing.

---

So your Jesus would do something that is not permitted for humans to do? You have a strange view of Jesus.

---

You have very bad comprehension. I'm saying that the disciples didn't even talk to Moses and Elijah, so you can't even argue that the presence of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration is evidence that we can talk to departed saints. Usually, to prove something, you actually have to show that something. I know, radical, right?

Jesus talking to Moses and Elijah was not an issue of what he was permitted to do, but rather what he was capable of doing, in his glorified state and position as the Son of God. I don't think anyone would doubt that Jesus, as God incarnate, was capable of communicating with heavenly beings that we are totally incapable of doing.

And here's the rub: suppose that Moses and Elijah HAD actually said something to the disciples, and the disciples could answer them. You do realize that this would NOT be through prayer, i.e. spiritual communication from one's heart, but rather through regular, human verbal communication, right? It wouldn't be proof at all that we can pray to saints. All it would show is that if a saint could in fact appear to you personally and talk to you, then you could talk with them. This would not entail prayer omniscience and omnipresence by the saint - the saint had to come to your vicinity, and actually hear you speaking to them. Just like it'd be if it was regular living people. So this doesn't prove that we can spiritually communicate (pray) to departed saints or Mary AT ALL.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sinless? Perpetually pure? Assumed bodily into heaven? Mediator between sinners and God? Ominscient and omnipresent in receiving prayers?? HELLO?? Sound familiar AT ALL?? Do you REALLY need an official document to know what's being screamed here?

---

What is your understanding (definition) of omnipresent and omniscient? Please cite where the Catholic Church claims these two attributes that can only be attributed to God alone.

I honestly post this with all humility. I believe that I understand your frustration; however, your posts do NOT present what the Catholic Church teaches.

To quote the Venerable Bishop Fulton J Sheen - "There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be."

This is where you are.

---

HOW in the world is my post a misrepresentation of what the RCC teaches??!! I've stated their dogmas, for pete's sake!

Prayer omnisicience and omnipresence is the ability to receive any prayer, from anywhere, and from any number of people simultaneously. Only heretics think this is a trait of someone other than God/Jesus alone.

This comment of yours is a prime example of a tremendous lack of either intellectual honesty or intelligence and frustratingly poor thinking and argumentation that warrants sharp criticism, what some here wildly exaggerate as "stripping you of your humanity" - in arguing against my point, you're asking me to cite where the Roman Catholic Church only attributes omniscience and omnipresence to God alone - THEY DON'T. THAT'S THE POINT, for goodness sake. The whole point was that the RCC attributes the same quality of omniscience that God/Jesus has to Mary, thus along with attributing to her sinlessness, being bodily assumed into heaven, and acting as mediator in heaven, they are giving her the same characteristics as Jesus and elevating her to his position. HOW is that NOT doing that?? Your blindness (or willful ignorance) to this fact is absolutely astounding. This is where YOU are.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Jesus is the new Adam. Mary is the new EVE. (Adam and Eve were born without original sin.) As the first woman came from man, Jesus came from Mary. God, in his wonderfully designed plan, has reversed what happened at the fall! Mary would HAVE to be sinless or she would be less than Eve. That's not possible. In typology, the new is always superior to the old.

---

Mary absolutely HAD to have been conceived in sin. If she was sinless, then she would NOT have been in the line of sinful seed coming from Adam and Eve, and she would NOT have carried that sinful line of seed to be able to produce Jesus who God promised would ultimately come from Eve's sinful line of seed to "crush the head of the serpent". If Mary was sinless, then there couldn't have been a reversal of the Fall through her at all. Your typology fails.

---

Explain where in the bible that the God promises that it will come from a sinful line. That's not in my bible.

---

EVERY person from the seed of Adam and Eve is in the line of original sin and inherits original sin. I don't even see how this is even a question.

The only way Mary could be sinless is if she did not come from Eve's seed - and if that's the case, then Jesus could NOT have come from her, because God specifically stated that it would be from Eve's seed that Jesus would come and "crush the head of the serpent".

It's your inability to understand/accept such basic things that is so troubling.

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In order for Jesus to be the new "Adam", his "Eve" would have to come FROM him, just as Eve was the "new" thing that came from Adam. Mary did not come from Jesus, Jesus was born from her. The "new" thing that came from Jesus was the church, Jesus' body of believers. If there is such a thing as a "new Eve" (which isn't biblical) it would be the church - that's why it's called the bride of Christ. But perhaps it is appropriate, though, to call Mary the new Eve in the sense that Eve brought sin into the world, just as the Catholic Mary has brought heresey and idolatry into Christianity.

---

Are you saying that Mary brought "heresey" into this world? You have a very low opinion of the mother of God. I pray for you to repent of this belief.

Maybe I have explained it well … Just like Eve came from Adam (whose that caused the destruction of mankind), God allowed the REVERSE to fix the world, and Jesus came from Mary.

I'm truly sad that you can't see this.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please WAKE UP. Give up the charade. The entire rational world knows you worship Mary.

---

Nope. Worship evolves sacrifice. We only offer sacrifice to God.

---

No, I specifically said that the CATHOLIC Mary brought heresy and idolatry. Any intelligent, intellectually honest person would not have created your straw man and would have seen that. The Catholic "Mary" is not the real biblical Mary. It is an idolized recreation of the pagan mother goddess Tammuz/Asherah/Isis that the Israelites worshiped and were severely punished by God for - who, interestingly, was called the "Queen of Heaven" in the bible.... exactly what Roman Catholics call Mary. How anyone isn't able to see what's going on here, is absolutely astounding. It's literally being screamed at you in the bible. You really need to WAKE UP.

No, worship doesn't only involve sacrifice. The angel in Revelation 22:8-9 said that John merely BOWING at his feet was worship. John wasn't sacrificing anything. Seriously, if you can't/won't see how this directly contradicts your view, then I'm afraid at this point you're just too far gone to be able to discern ANY truth at all.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You've repeatedly said Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, but you've never shown how. Sola Scriptura is not self-refuting. This is just another really weak Catholic rebuttal.

---

Show us where in the bible that the bible is the sole rule of faith. You can't. It's self-refuting. The bible never says that. You'll have to explain where that it.

As a bonus, please why we should accept your fallible interpretation of bible passages. Where is your authority?

---

So let me get this straight - you're saying sola scriptura is self-refuting, because sola scriptura means that only that which is in the bible should be the rule of faith, and since sola scriptura isn't in bible, it can't be a rule of faith..

Is that correct?

If so, do you see the major flaw(s) there?

Quote:

---

Once again, please cite official Catholic teaching that states that Mary is a God.

---

If you can't, at this point in your life, understand the concept of "saying something without directly saying it", then you've learned nothing.

No one is even saying that Catholics call Mary a "God". What can't be argued, though, is that Catholics have elevated Mary to the level of divinity, even outright usurping the role/position of Jesus. If that hasn't been made crystal clear by this point, then you're just not listening. I'll given even more evidence of this, later.

Quote:

---

God COULD have chosen to have the Christ be born of a *****, but He chose what was FITTING. To have her be born of a sinless virgin. It's sad to see you degrade her like this.

---

This is, yet again, more blatant intellectualy dishonesty/stupidity from you. I never degraded her. It was YOU who said God could have chosen a ***** to give birth to Jesus. Good grief, you are THE WORST.

Quote:

---

Did you kneel before your wife when you got engaged? I did. It didn't mean that I worshipped her.

Also, remember that Soloman bowed before Bathsheba. He wasn't worshipping her. He was asking for her intercession.

Have you ever kissed a picture of your wife or son? Were you worshipping them? This is a silly objection.

People sing songs to Santa Clause, spouses, historical figures, lovers, ex-lovers, etc. They aren't worshipping them.

I've already discussed the Rosary here before. It's a merely a contemplation of the life of Christ using scripture. Please PM me if you'd like to learn more. Will you listen and understand this time?

Sadly, your biases are clouding your judgement.

---

We don't bow or kneel to our spouses, and to anyone else for that matter, or kiss their photos, or sing songs to them for the reason you do those things to Mary. You do these to/for her as a glorified being, with a glorified position in heaven, to whom you can petition for supernatural intervention.

We don't sing hymns of praise to our spouses/historical figures/lovers, especially not IN CHURCH as part of service.

We don't spiritually communicate to them, believing they can read our minds and hearts.

We don't hold HUNDREDS of festivals for them every year.

And we don't do all these in sum for that one person. If a guy went to church and prayed to his girlfriend, sang hymns to her, kissed her image in church, bowed to it, and said her name 10 times to every one time he said God's name, and then throughout the year he organized hundreds of festivals for her.... anyone with at least half a brain would say that he worships her. It wouldn't even be a question.

If you can't see this, you are just so incredibly blind and lost.

Quote:

---

In typology the new is ALWAYS superior to the old. Both Adam and Eve were sinless (until the fall), just like Jesus and Mary were both sinless.

St. Augustine said that "the Old Testament is the New concealed, but the New Testament is the Old revealed"

Irenaeus of Lyon (180 AD, who was a disciple of Polycarp who was taught by John) shows that he believes that Mary is the new Eve when he says that Eve "by disobeying became the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so also Mary . . . was obedient and became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race" (Against Heresies 3.22.4).

Eve is the mother of ALL the living.
Mary is the mother of ALL those living in Christ.

The "Eva" (Eve) is reversed by the "Ave" that the angel says to Mary.

The Old Eve fails in the temptation of the fallen angel.
The New Eve (Mary) acquiesced to the invitation of the holy angel.

The Old Eve says "yes" to herself - she did things her way by eating of the tree of knowledge and evil.
The New Eve (Mary), in her fiat, says "yes" to God.

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296373) "O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides" (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

What did the original Ark of the Covenant hold? Aaron's staff (high priest), the Manna from the Desert (bread from God), and the Ten Commandments (the Word of God)
What did Mary hold in her womb? Jesus - the High Priest, the Bread from Heaven, and the Word of God.




What does David do before the Ark? He leaps and dances. What does John the Baptist do in the womb of Elisabeth? He leaps and dances in her womb.

As I stated earlier, in Typology, the new is ALWAYS superior to the old. If Eve was originally sinless, Mary was also sinless AND remained sinless throughout her life. She is superior to the new eve.

St Luke is screaming this in his Gospel. The early Christians, would have understood this immediately. Sadly, many Protestants does understand and see these connections today.

Finally, the original Ark of the Covenant was made from acacia wood (incorruptible wood) and covered in the most purist of metals of the day - Gold. In typology, the new is ALWAYS superior to the old. Mary MOST definitely been more incorruptible and pure than the original Ark.

It is you that doesn't understand typology correctly.

I truly wish that I could understand it for you.

---

Irenaeus isn't scripture. Athanasius is writing three centuries after Jesus. And neither even comes close to saying that Mary was sinless.

"St Luke is screaming this in his Gospel. The early Christians, would have understood this immediately." - right, so much so, that the idea that Mary was sinless is completely absent in scripture and a completely foreign concept in the early church. Even the early church fathers said she was a sinner.

"Where does David find the Ark? In the Hill Country of Judea. Where does Mary (the New Ark) go? To the Hill Country of Judea to visit Elisabeth." - I'm quite certain that Mary wasn't the only Israelite to ever traverse to the Hill Country of Judea, nor was that the only place she went. This is really forcing things.

"The "Eva" (Eve) is reversed by the "Ave" that the angel says to Mary" - Eve wasn't her name. Neither did the angel say "Ave". Those are anglicanized words from the original Hebrew and Greek. In Hebrew, Eve's name was "haw-wah" and the angelic greeting to Mary in Greek was "Chaire". Your typology isn't typology if it is only valid in the English language 2000 years later.

"Eve is the mother of ALL the living. Mary is the mother of ALL those living in Christ." - Jesus specifically states that his "mother, brothers, sisters" are all those who do the will of God (Matthew 12:46-50)

"What does David do before the Ark? He leaps and dances. What does John the Baptist do in the womb of Elisabeth? He leaps and dances in her womb." - The gospels do not say that John the Baptist "danced" in the womb. He only "leaped". So going by your typology, I guess this means that Jesus was only half as important as the ark. And guess who else "leaped" - the worshipers of Baal, around their altar in 1 Kings 18:26. That doesn't mean Jesus is Baal. Also, the lame man who Peter healed in Acts "leaped" (Acts 3:8) in front of him. Does that mean Peter is the ark?

"What did the original Ark of the Covenant hold? Aaron's staff (high priest), the Manna from the Desert (bread from God), and the Ten Commandments (the Word of God). What did Mary hold in her womb? Jesus - the High Priest, the Bread from Heaven, and the Word of God." - A woman specifically tried to praise the womb that bore Jesus in Luke 11:27-28, but Jesus didn't validate that praise; instead he redirected it to those who hear the word of God and obey it.

Dude, I realize that I may be spitting against the wind; however, I am only trying to make the point that there may be some participating in this discussion who might be more apt to reflect upon your responses and their validity if you were not so often inclined to be in assassin mode.

IMO, you often make good points substantiated by good reasoning, including a few I don't fully agree with at this time. IMO, Jesus saved such a tone only when addressing the Pharisees, Scribe and Sadducees, and deservedly so.

Some on this thread apparently would classify you as a bit too self righteous. To those I would caution a few of them to look in a mirror, as indicated below:

Those who condemn the self-righteous for the sake of self-discovery do so with ironic self-righteousness."

Dude, I realize that I may be spitting against the wind; however, I am only trying to make the point that there may be some participating in this discussion who might be more apt to reflect upon your responses and their validity if you were not so often inclined to be in assassin mode.

IMO, you often make good points substantiated by good reasoning, including a few I don't fully agree with at this time. IMO, Jesus saved such a tone only when addressing the Pharisees, Scribe and Sadducees, and deservedly so.

Some on this thread apparently would classify you as a bit too self righteous. To those I would caution a few of them to look in a mirror, as indicated below:

Those who condemn the self-righteous for the sake of self-discovery do so with ironic self-righteousness."